Lense selection

[Swampy]

Ok, I've had my S2 for about 2 weeks now and I don't want to impose on the friend who has been loaning me a lens much longer (not that it bothers him at all).

I'm looking for feedback on a full game plan for buying up to 3 lenses to cover from around 17mm through to somewhere around 300mm to 400mm. I most certainly will be buying more than 3 lenses, but these 3 will have to be my "general" use lenses for now.

I was seriously looking at the Tokina 24-200mm which appears to be slightly better than the nikkor 24-120 (which I'm borrowing now). I am taking landscape, candid's of friends/family, few portraits and a lot of detail shots involving macro shots of flowers.

In short, I'm looking for a good general use lense right this minute, and I enjoy the 24-120mm functionality of the Nikkor I am using now, but wouldn't mind more. I'm not extremely happy with the f3.5-5.6 and would like something faster, but I can manage it.

Tell me something about Macro these days. I have been away from standard film for quite a while using digital. I am used to being able to get into something as close as 1 1/4" away and completely filling the frame with a 3" diameter flower. I'm a little confused when I see "macro" listed on a lense and a closest focusing point of around 16 inches. I see specs of 1:4.2 and 1:11.5 for magnifications. So, which end of the spectrum am I looking for to get the better magnification, larger second number I'm assuming. I would really like to start using my S2 for these types of photos soon, but the general purpose lens is a first for sure. I've been looking at Nikkor, Sigma and Tokina. The Macro lense doesn't have to have any zoom capabilities, but is a plus. I would definitely consider making the plan a 4 lense selection if need be to get a good macro lense and getting a zoom of around 17mm-35~50mm.

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Thanks,

Bryan

[memobug]

Hi Swampy,

The magnification ratio works the other way 'round from the way you suspected. It's size-on-film : size-in-life

A ratio of 1:3, for example, is 1/3 life size on the image plane. If your 3" flower fills the width of the frame of an S2, your mag ratio is in that ballpark, cause the sensor's about an inch wide. The Micro Nikkor 60mm is really great, but you've probably heard that before? It would be a good choice for flowers and makes a nice portrait lens too at a 90mm effective focal length.

On the lenses, I think you have to talk budget along with the focal length and speed. For example, I could tell you to go out and buy a Nikkor 17-35 AFS for the bottom end, and if you had the dough, that would be perfect A lot of people that don't get the 18-35 non AFS and like it fine. The digital series lenses that Nikon announced look interesting, but the speed of the first is nothing to shout about. It will fill a need though.

Regards,

Matt

[Swampy]

Originally posted by memobug
Hi Swampy,

The magnification ratio works the other way 'round from the way you suspected. It's size-on-film : size-in-life

The Micro Nikkor 60mm is really great, but you've probably heard that before?

I could tell you to go out and buy a Nikkor 17-35 AFS for the bottom end, and if you had the dough, that would be perfect A lot of people that don't get the 18-35 non AFS and like it fine. The digital series lenses that Nikon announced look interesting, but the speed of the first is nothing to shout about. It will fill a need though.


Thank you! Now I get it. :D

I think it was you who mentioned the 60mm a few days ago (I've pretty much got lenses on the brain right now and have so much info, I may jump off a bridge or something. :))

Yeah, you could tell me to get the 17-35 and take an equity loan out on the house and a divorce. Looked at that lense and it will have to wait until probably next Xmas. Can you post a link for the Nikon digital series? I can't seem to find anything on them.

I think I'm going to settle on the 60mm and the tokina 24-200mm right now. I'm going to look around for another day or so before I make the final jump. Any other lenses worth looking at besides Nikkor, Tokina and Sigma? I have a Soligor for my Canon A1 that I've really enjoyed over the years, but I don't think they exist anymore.

Thanks Matt.

Bryan

[memobug]

Here you go on the digital series lenses. If this link doesn't work go to www.dpreview.com and click NEWS then look for Nikon Announces DX Digital Series Lenses or a title like that

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0212/02121201nikondxlenses.asp

On the starter lenses, it's always tempting to try to get more range, but the photo quality usually suffers. I'm sure, with the current technology, an 8x zoom like that 24-200 Tokina wouldn't satisfy me. Give the 24-85/G AFS a try. You may be pleasantly surprised.

Regards,

Matt

[Swampy]

Originally posted by memobug
Give the 24-85/G AFS a try. You may be pleasantly surprised.

Regards,

Matt

The G or the D? I show the G as being an f3.5-4.5, while the D is showing as f2.8-4.

Wouldn't I want the faster lense?

Everyone is trying to talk me out of the larger range, so I'm looking at 24~28 to 75~80mm range, but I should think I could find something with a solid f2.8 somewhere there. I'd rather go with the 24, and not a 28 though.

I'll keep looking, but tell me about the G or the D above...

Thanks,

Bryan

[Wichita Wayne]

Almost all the time I have a Nikkor 28-200mm D lens on the S2 Pro. I also have a Nikkor 70-300 G lens. (The G lenses use composite material, even as part of the lens mount, and they do not have an appature ring. This saves on manufacturing and makes lower prices possible.) I also use a micro Nikkor 60mm D lens or an old 105mm micro Nikkor when I need a lens that focuses close or is dead sharp to the edges. I also have a 50mm 1.8 lens for those times when I need a little more F-stop in low light situations.

However, like I said the 28-200 is pretty much my standard lens for this camera. I also have an assistant that uses the Sigma 28-200 and he loves it. He also has a cheap Vivitar 20mm non AF lens that can be used if necessary, but you have to use a hand held meter with the S2 set on manual. the 20mm Vivitars are really cheap on eBay and do a pretty fair job for occasional digital work. The 20mm usually goes on an old manual Nikon camera, but it can be used on the S2.

If you can only afford one lens then I would recommend with the 28-200 Nikkor or Sigma.

[Swampy]

With all the comments made today here and at work, I'm leaning towards getting the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8, then grabbing a Nikkor 60mm 2.8 for my macro shots, then a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 for portraits, and finally in my game plan, the Nikkor 17-35mm F2.8. At that point, I'll start looking for a large lens and maybe try out a few others in the process.

This is the plan as of now. The way things are going, this could change though. I'm still reeling about the Tokina 24-200mm for my utility lens. I carry my camera with me just about everywhere and I never know when or where I might need to snap one off almost immediately. Keep the comments coming. Maybe tomorrow afternoon or middle of next week I'll buy the first one.

[memobug]

Originally posted by Wayne
...I also have a Nikkor 70-300 G lens. (The G lenses use composite material, even as part of the lens mount, and they do not have an appature ring. This saves on manufacturing and makes lower prices possible.)

"G" designation simply means that the lens does not have a manual aperture ring. It does not indicate anything about the construction of the lens mount, the price or quality of the lens.

For example, the 24-85/G AF-S has a metal lens mount. There are also inexpensive "G" lenses. The soon-to-be released flagship 70-200 2.8 AF-S is also reported to be a "G" series lens - according to this articles,

http://www.moose395.net/gear/mcb2485afs.html

and photographs

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02022103nikonlenses.asp

released so far, as are the recently announced DX series lenses

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0212/02121201nikondxlenses.asp

Regards,

Matt

[Wichita Wayne]

It is also much lighter than the old Nikkor zooms which leads me to believe that it uses composit material internally as well. This does not mean that the lens is of lower manufacturing quality. After all the fastest car in the world (Zonda C12) has a composit frame.



http://www.modena-design.it/images/zondasmall01.jpg

Wayne

[Swampy]

Originally posted by Wayne
After all the fastest car in the world (Zonda C12) has a composit frame.

Beg to differ... The Mclaren F1 still holds the fastest production at 0-60 in 2.6 seconds, 0-200 in 28 seconds and a top speed of 241mph, although, in real world tests, I've only seen speeds of 231mph. Even the Jaguar XJ220 beats the Zonda I believe and also holds the charts as the fastest production SIX cyclinder, only being beat by the Mclaren.

Let's not forget about the marineturbine motorcycle that comes in with 9.80@160mph 1/4 mile, top speed of 250mph and 0-227 in 15 seconds. Has 320hp @ 52,000rpm. Yes. 52 thousand. :) And it runs on diesel!

To keep this on topic, I need to ask my buddy to let me take some pictures of his XJ220, and I'll post them. :)

[Wichita Wayne]

Just saw the tests on an English show called Top Gear (while visiting the UK) and this thing blew away all the competition. It may have been the European model I saw tested. It has a 7+ liter V-12 MBenz engine. It is also a brand new model designed to break all the records. But I am sure that McLaren will step up and claim the title back.

By the way the show also tested radar guns and found out that once you exceed 170 mph the gones will not even register that you were there. So if you want to avoid radar guns just make sure that your speed exceeds 170.

[turbo-944]

Hi Swampy,

The way I have covered the range is with the Nikkor 18-35 3.5-4.5, Tamron 28-105 2.8, Nikkor 80-200 2.8. I picked the 18-25 as a budget option to get the range. The Tamron has good performance and I really need the 2.8 ( I mostly shoot PJ weddings ), and the Nikkor 80-200 2.8 is a great lens. I have been wanting the Nikkor 17-35 to get 2.8 @ this range, but am out of second mortgages on my house, car and dog. Luckily I have, on the way, a 17-35 from a friend who works in an environment where Canon is the standard, so he is switching to take advandage of their resources. He only wanted rights to my first born, or was it my dogs first born?, and was willing to work with me on payment. If you are interrested, I am putting the 18-35 up for sale. It was purchased in October '02 and has been used for 6 weddings and a few personnal shots. It is in 'like new' condition. Good luck with your choices.

Dan. turbo-944@cox.net

[Swampy]

Ok, I got a Sigma 24-70mm for my general purpose shooting this afternoon and I sat down with that and 2 nikkor lenses (80-200mm f2.8 D and the 24-120mm D). I took a few pictures on a tripod with each lense of the same subject and posted partial full copies and results up on a page as well as some crops showing a few other details. I think the Sigma has potential to keep up with the 80-200mm for sharpness and brightness. Actually, I had to step back on the EV -0.5 to get close to the same contrast as the nikkors, and probably -1 would have matched them. I'll need to fool around with it for a while and see what I can get out of it. So far, I like the lens.

Check out the comparisons at http://theswampbbs.com/s2/pics/lenscompare

The second link on that page are crops of the full picture that are pretty big (not the full picture at least), so give it 30 seconds to load. Interesting flare from the 80-200 and the sigma, but not the 24-120...

Comments (after reviewing the sample shots)?

Bryan

[Bruce Tucker]

Anyone here have any experience with the Tokina 28-70mm 2.8 or the 28-80mm 2.8 on the S2 ?

[traumlandschaft]

As written above, I use the ATX Pro II 2,6-2,8/28-70, but I only use it on my F5.

Why? Ok, I made my tests, but at first I do not need the 2,8 instead of the 3,5 (regarding my 24-85 G), but the 4 mm more make the difference.

Second, the resolution of this lense is - based on my private Tests - not high enough for my S2. For the F5 with it's bigger "Sensor" and the use of Colour Slide Film it is ok.

Resume: It's ok, but do not expect miracles - but if you consider the Value (Price versus Results) it is a great lense.

Regards

traumlandschaft

[Swampy]

After playing with my Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, I think I got a winner for clarity. There's only two gripes about it from me though, the length and the focus.

This lens is a bit longer (probably 35% longer) than the Nikkor 24-120mm. The odd part about this lens is that when it's at it's shortest length, you're at 70mm and when you're at the longest length, you're at 24mm. Seems to be backwards from every other lens I've ever seen.

The Focus... You figure you turn over to max which is infinity and everything should be in focus at far distances, at least, again, that's been my experience with every other lens I've seen and used. You can actually go past infinity to go out of focus the other direction.

Funny thing is, I bought this lens to be my general everyday use lens and since I've had it for over a week, I've been using my borrowed 80-200mm nikkor 80% of the time. :)